You should do some talking to your reps. The kerfluffle was caused by the angry minority.

I have been. That's what I thought. I thought you said majority. The kurfufflers, that is. Same page. sorry.

What?

That made absolutely no sense.

You just said ^^^^^ up there council 1 was in the majority. Now you are saying they are in the minority?

http://a0.img.mobypicture.com/e4ece2...049a5_view.jpg

agree to misunderstand.

Clamp is right on this. It's the majority of LEC reps that are refusing to accept what the negotiating committee (at the direction of certain MEC administrators) are trying to cram down.

I've read some confusion here and I think it's about terminology. The MEC is all of our reps led (in process) by the MEC chairman. The MEC administration is a different animal. The MEC administration includes some really bad actors like Harwood on the strategic planning committee, the negotiating Committe and other Committee members. The MEC administration is mostly made up of unelected bureaucrats who work at the pleasure of the MEC chairman. Sometimes you can get lucky and they're great guys, sometimes you can get unlucky like now with Harwood having so much influence on appointing the bureaucrats.

In this latest incident, a majority of the MEC (our elected reps) are very concerned about their direction being ignored by the MEC administration (mostly unelected bureaucrats). That's a problem and Council 1 is highlighting it. That's why these latest posters like Professor, pilotstats, rube, Chuck Essential (which is really irritating given what a cool guy Check Essential is) and the others are here. They're here to rail against our elected reps keeping us informed. Very typical of an MEC administration using these guys to patrol social media to attempt message control.

Bottom line is that this is good stuff. The MEC administration is desperately trying to get a 10-9 vote out to the members because they know memory rat will pass. The MEC is telling the MEC administration that ain't happening. So will the MEC administration sign a TA that is against the specific direction of the MEC like they did in C2012 and dare the MEC to vote it down? Or will this shot across the bow to the MEC administration make that administration go back to the table and explicitly follow MEC direction. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Carl

I believe a majority vote of the MEC is all it would take. Guaranteed he'd be back in another unelected position, but at least he wouldn't be chairing a committee.

Carl

Incorrect. I talked to him right before the new NC chairman was elected and he was excited and energized about working toward C2015. The new NC chairman didn't want him there. Period. He chose to resign instead of serving on a committee where the new chairman didn't want him.

And for the new people here, Slowplay was one of the MEC administrators that was fired after C2012 because of his really bad actions during the sales job. Harwood got back in, but Slowplay is still out. Just for context.

Carl

Good catch to notice that these responses from "the union" are actually responses from the MEC administration. Not the MEC, but the administration. Unsigned of course. Just like the Special Committee...always unsigned.

Carl